A controversial, secretive court that makes decisions about the lives of people who lack the physical or mental capacity to do so themselves will routinely be opened to public and media scrutiny under plans drawn up by the senior judge responsible for its administration.

Sir James Munby, the new president of the family division in the court system, said the rules should be changed so that it is presumed the media can attend proceedings in the court of protection, set up in 2007, which normally sits in private unless specific requests are made for the evidence to be heard in public.

Addressing a conference, Munby said: "My starting point is that, unless there is very good reason to the contrary, the [court of protection] rules should start off in the same way [as those governing the family courts], with the same starting point, and proceed in a similar fashion.

"One very striking difference is that, in the family court, any accredited media representative has the right to attend all family proceedings … the starting point in the court of protection is completely the other way round.

"My feeling is that the starting point should be the same in both, so that there should be the same kind of presumptive right of media access to court of protection proceedings, as there are in family proceedings."

The court of protection was criticised by some sections of the media after it emerged that a woman was jailed for contempt without even knowing that the hearing to commit her was going ahead. The Daily Mail reported that the decision to jail Wanda Maddocks for five months was not even published, forcing the then lord chief justice, Lord Judge, to order that no one else should ever be jailed in private without the sentence and reasons for it being announced outside the closed courtroom.

Some workings of the court of protection were made public during the case of Mark Neary and his autistic son Steven, from northwest London. They were forced to live apart when Steven was deprived of his liberty and taken to live in a care home in Wales.

Mark Neary successfully fought Hillingdon council, which had decided to impose the order, in the court of protection and his case only came to the public's attention when newspapers managed to gain access to the court. According to reports, Mark credited the media coverage of the case for Steven's return home.

Munby has been keen to open up the family courts. In a judgment last month he said: "There is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system."

His latest comments on the court of protection moves his programme significantly further forward. The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has also requested a review of the transparency of the court of protection.

Proponents argue that the rules are essential to protect the vulnerable parties to proceedings in the court. However, some have said that the effect is simply to shelter the court from the glare of scrutiny.

Speaking at the Court of Protection Practice and Procedure conference, hosted by Jordan Publishing, Munby said that while there were some differences between the family court – which will come into being in April next year – and the court of protection, they should be part of a single system, which would share many common rules.

He said: "How can one expect the media, how can one expect the world, how can one expect the public at large to have confidence in a system and to be supportive of a system which seems for no very obvious and rational reason [not to do so]?"

Vikram Sachdeva, a barrister of the 39 Essex Street chambers, articulated the argument for barring the press and public at the Jordan Publishing court of protection practice and procedure conference, held in London this week. He said: "Why should it be the case that, if … issues are being discussed in the court of protection, why should a member of the public be able to come in and listen?"

But he added that it was difficult to justify the differences between the rules that apply in the family division and those that apply in the court of protection and welcomed Munby's proposals.

Munby said he wanted to ensure that more judgments were published, so that the public could have confidence that justice was being done.

He said he recognised there might be financial and political opposition but said they were things to be confronted and overcome, adding that the implementation of his plans was vital.

He also announced a "tentative idea" to have the court sit across the country. Most of its hearings take place in the high court, making it difficult for people who do not live in London to attend, he said. He also said he wanted to streamline its administrative processes, in order to make it easier for people to access the court's services.